according to this logic. The article follows this thought process...Marathoners long run about 20 and can go 26, therefore if you are running a half your long run only needs to be 7 miles because you get six bonus(?) miles. I decided to extend it one step further, I guess a single loop around a track should cut it for a 10k.

Clearly my example is asinine, however, the half-marathon assumption the author makes seems almost equally so. What I am missing here....why is this article not just crazy. Did I misread somehow?

I guess I'm missing the whole point of this article AND this thread. Are we talking about OPTIMUM long run for 10k/half marathon or enough to get by and survive? I think most people can jump in a 5k without ANY training at all and survive to the finish line so their "optimal" long run would be "0"???

I'm in Colorado now and I visited Mark Wetmore yesterday. The team (CU) was running a MEDIUM long run yesterday. Emma Coburn, a steeple champion who finished 12th in the World Championships in Korea last summer ran 11.5 miles in 73 minutes for her less-than-2-mile race. A young man who he thinks could break 4-minute for the mile this season did 14-miles.

I'm just glad I don't make a living writing for a running magazine. There are only so many ways to say, "This sport isn't that complicated, you idiots!"

Giggle. I took a friend on a run today and got this feedback. "I learned more from you today than in one year subscribing to Runner's World." So there you go. All you need to know about running takes about 5 miles.

I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7